The need for reform in mental health services is acute, severe and unavoidable.

This
demands nothing less than a manifesto for reform.

A spectre is haunting our mental health services. Recent scientific advances in
understanding human psychology have revealed traditional ‘disease-model’ thinking
about mental health to be profoundly flawed, and far-reaching changes are required in
how we plan and commission services. Our present approach to helping people in acute
emotional distress is severely hampered by old-fashioned and unscientific ideas about the
nature and origins of mental health problems, and vulnerable people suffer as a result of
inappropriate treatment. Radical remedies are required.
Taking its lead from physical health care, the current mental health care system
currently ‘diagnoses’ our emotional, behavioural and psychological problems as
‘illnesses’, and is largely based on the idea that they arise primarily from brain
abnormalities. The hope has been that eventually ‘biomarkers’ (physical signs) and
biological causes (preferably genetic) will soon be found. This ‘disease model’ underpins
too much of modern mental health care and has had profound and damaging effects.
It has led to inappropriate and harmful treatment. For many people, the only or
main treatment currently offered is medication. Whilst useful for some people, recent
research suggests that in general, the helpfulness of medication has been overestimated.
Evidence is also accumulating that psychiatric medication can have dangerous adverse
effects (side-effects) especially when taken long term.
It has prevented effective help and treatment. The disempowering idea that they
are passive recipients of medical treatment for a disease has interfered with people’s
ability to help and support themselves and each other. It has diverted resources away
from effective sources of help such as listening and psychological therapy services, and
practical help to improve life circumstances.
It has led to alienation between staff and service users. When people are
experiencing huge distress and fear that their sanity, even their life, is threatened,
empathy and compassion are central to any attempt to help. The ‘disease model’ locates
problems within the individual and leads staff to see people’s behaviour and distress as
irrational rather than as potentially understandable. This reduces professionals’ ability to
listen, empathise and show compassion. Service users’ experiences are disregarded and
their stories unheard. People often experience services as inhumane and avoid them. Only
in mental health is there a ‘survivor movement’ – survivors not only of distress but
specifically of the services supposedly established to help them.
It has necessitated widespread use of coercion. Mental health law has traditionally
been based on the disease idea. Service users who see their problems differently and do
not wish to take drugs have been seen as ‘lacking insight’ and have often been detained
and administered drugs by force. Many thousands of people each year are detained in
hospital and treated against their will. There is good reason to believe that these numbers
could be reduced hugely if services adopted the approach outlined below.

It has diverted resources from efforts at prevention. The current approach to
mental health care focusses attention almost exclusively on individual ‘pathology’ as the
source of problems and as the focus for professional efforts. New knowledge about the
role of life circumstances will lead to much more effective programmes of prevention,
comparable to the effects on physical health of public health interventions such as the
purification of drinking water.
The time has come for a wholesale reform of mental health services. We must
move away from the ‘disease model’, which assumes that emotional distress is merely
symptomatic of biological illness, and instead embrace a model of mental health and
well-being that recognises our essential and shared humanity.
The Manifesto:
Article 1: services should be based on the premise that the origins of distress are
largely social
The first step towards a humane, scientific approach to care is to change the
framework of understanding from a ‘disease model’ to a ‘psychosocial model’. The
guiding idea underpinning mental health services needs to change from assuming that our
role is to treat ‘disease’ to appreciating that our role is to help and support people who are
distressed as a result of their life circumstances, and how they have made sense of and
reacted to them.
We all differ in the ways we respond to events, and there are many reasons for
those differences. Our thoughts, our emotions, our behaviour, and therefore our mental
health, are largely dependent on our under- standing of the world, our thoughts about
ourselves, other people, the future and the world. There are as many different reasons for
these different responses as there are people in the world. Biological factors, social
factors, circumstantial factors – our learning as human beings – all affect us; those
external factors impact on the key psychological processes that help us build up our sense
of who we are and the way the world works.
Article 2: services should replace ‘diagnoses’ with straightforward descriptions of
problems
We must stop regarding people’s very real emotional distress as merely the
symptom of diagnosable ‘illnesses’. A simple list of people’s problems (properly defined)
would have greater scientific validity and would be more than sufficient as a basis for
individual care planning and for the design and planning of services. Some medical
professionals and many members of the general public mistakenly believe that
psychiatric diagnoses reflect real ‘illnesses’. However, research does not support this
view. There is little evidence that mental health ‘diagnoses’ say anything useful about the
causes of a problem or what is likely to help. Some people have found ‘diagnoses’ useful
in providing a framework within which to understand their difficulties, and in accessing
help and support. However, there are other, more scientifically valid and more helpful
ways of reassuring people that their problems are recognised (in both senses of the word),
understood, validated, explained (and explicable) and that some help is available. The approach described here outlines how this vital help and support can continue to be
provided without the need to make the assumption that problems reflect underlying
‘illnesses’.

Some legal and other professionals mistakenly believe that diagnoses are needed
in order to allow people to communicate efficiently with one another. However again
diagnoses are misleading and unnecessary; a simple and direct list of a person’s actual
experiences and problems provides more information and is of greater communicative
value than a diagnostic label. Of course we need to research the nature, causes and
remedies of problems. Again, ‘diagnoses’ are misleading here: rather than trying to
investigate hypothetical ‘illnesses’, researchers would be better advised to study the
nature and causes of specific, identified problems, and what can help.
Many medical professionals and policymakers mistakenly assume that we need to
use diagnoses in order to allocate resources to those who need them. However we can see
from how resources are successfully allocated in a vast swathe of other public services
that this simply isn’t true.
Article 3: services should radically reduce use of medication, and use it
pragmatically rather than presenting it as ‘treatment’
We should sharply reduce our reliance on medication to address emotional
distress. Medication should be used sparingly and on the basis of what is needed in a
particular situation – for example to help someone to sleep or to feel calmer. We should
not look to medication to ‘cure’ or even ‘manage’ non-existent underlying ‘illnesses’.
In practical terms, we should aim for a massive reduction in the level of
psychiatric prescription. There should be many fewer prescriptions, at lower doses, for
much shorter periods. In essence, this means adopting a ‘drug-based’ approach in contrast
to the more common ‘disease-based’ approach. We should respond to people’s specific
symptoms, rather than make the mistake that we’re treating illnesses that can be
identified by diagnosis. We need to listen to the person’s own experiences of which drugs
have helped in the past and how they are finding those currently prescribed, and use what
they say to guide our prescribing. Perhaps most importantly, we should only use
psychiatric medication in the very short term (i.e., for a matter of days) in the vast
majority of cases.
Article 4: services should tailor help to each person’s unique and complex needs
Problems do not come in neat boxes. Services should be equipped to help with the
full range of people’s social, personal and psychological needs, and to address both
prevention and recovery.
We must offer services that help people to help themselves and each other rather
than disempowering them: services that facilitate personal ‘agency’ in psychological
jargon. That means involving a wide range of community workers and psychologists in
multidisciplinary teams, and promoting psychosocial rather than medical solutions.
Where individual therapy is needed, effective, formulation-based (and therefore
individually tailored) psychological therapies should be available to all.

All such therapies should be evidence-based and delivered by qualified,
competent professionals. Decisions about what therapy or therapies should be offered to
whom should be based on a person’s specific problems and on the best evidence for the
effectiveness of the intervention, not on the diagnosis. Individual formulations should be
used to put together an individualised package of care for each person’s unique set of
problems. Using psychological therapies as part of a psychosocial, rather than
biomedical, approach would significantly change the way clinical psychologists and
others work.
Our psychiatric colleagues would play an important medical role within this
overall psychosocial ethos. Their role would be analogous to those of general
practitioners, public health physicians, and doctors who offer their expertise to athletes.
Article 5: services should offer care rather than coercion
When people are in crisis, residential care may be needed, but this should not be
seen as a medical issue. Since a ‘disease model’ is inappropriate, it is also inappropriate
to care for people in hospital wards; a different model of care is needed. As with other
services, residential units should be based on a psychosocial rather than a medical model.
Residential social workers or nurses who have retrained in a psychosocial approach (and
possibly with a more appropriate professional title) are likely to be best placed to lead
such units. The nature of extreme distress means medical colleagues may well be
valuable members of the team but again their role should be as consultants to the team,
rather than automatically as leaders of the team.
The need for compulsory detention would be much reduced within this new
approach. In those instances where compulsory detention was necessary, decisions would
be based on the risks that individuals are thought to pose to themselves and others,
together with their capacity to make decisions about their own care. This approach is
already the basis for the law in Scotland. The law in England and Wales permits the
‘responsible clinician’ (the person who is legally responsible for some- one’s care,
traditionally a psychiatrist) to be a psychologist, nurse, or social worker. This should be
routine. When we reject a ‘disease model’ of care and adopt a ‘human-centred’ model,
the law relating to mental health could change significantly. There would be different
criteria governing to whom the law applies, different ways of assuring that people are
offered care that is (in the words of the current law) ‘least restrictive’, with a
psychosocial focus, new roles for new professions, and a greater focus on social justice
and judicial oversight.
Article 6: mental health teams need to be radically different
Teams should be multidisciplinary, democratic and based on a psycho- social
model. A psychosocial approach to service delivery would mean increased investment in
the full range of professionals able to deliver these therapeutic services. Peer
professionals, namely people with lived experience of mental health problems, will be
particularly valuable, as will those skilled in practical issues such as finding employment
or training. In the multidisciplinary teams delivering these services, psychiatric
colleagues will remain valuable colleagues. An ideal model for interdisciplinary working

would see leadership of such teams deter- mined by the skills and personal qualities of
the individual members of the team, rather than by their profession. It would not be
assumed that medical colleagues should have ‘clinical primacy’ or unquestioned
authority.
Article 7: mental health services should be under local authority control
Mental health services should be based in local authorities, alongside other social,
community-based, services. The thrust of the arguments in this book culminates in a
simple message. The psychological, emotional and behavioural problems that are
commonly referred to as mental health problems are fundamentally social and
psychological issues. Psychologists, therapists and social workers must work closely
alongside GPs, public health physicians, nurses and psychiatrists. But mental health and
well-being is fundamentally a psychological and social phenomenon, with medical
aspects. It is not, fundamentally, a medical phenomenon with additional psychological
and social elements. It follows that the correct place for mental health care is within the
social care system.
That doesn’t mean that we should design medical teams for psychiatry, and manage them
out of hospital-based, NHS-based Trusts but, instead, housed in a building away from the
hospital site as a gesture to being ‘community-based’. It means that we should locate the
whole service in the community – put it entirely under local authority control. In the UK,
we have the model of public health, recently transferred to local authority control, to
build upon. Such services should be – and could then be – under democratic local
governance.
Article 8: we must establish the social prerequisites for genuine mental health and
well-being
Our mental health and well-being are largely dependent on our social
circumstances. To promote genuine mental health and well-being we need to protect and
promote universal human rights, as enshrined in the United Nations’ Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Because experiences of neglect, rejection and abuse are
hugely important in the genesis of many problems, we need to redouble our efforts to
protect children from emotional, physical or sexual abuse and neglect. Equally, we must
protect both adults and children from bullying and discrimination: whether that is racism,
homophobia, or discrimination based on sexuality, gender, disability or ‘mental health’ or
any other characteristic. We can all do more to combat discrimination and promote a
more tolerant and accepting society. More generally, if we are serious about preventing
mental health problems from developing, and about promoting genuine psychological
well-being, we must work collectively to create a more humane society: to reduce or
eliminate poverty, especially childhood poverty, and to reduce financial and social
inequality. We need to work harder to promote peace, social justice and equity, and
ensure that citizens are properly fed, housed, and educated, and living in a sustainable
natural ecosystem. We need to promote social mobility and social inclusion, encourage
actions aimed at the common or collective good (for instance through practical support of
local charitable activities), and reduce both corruption and materialistic greed. In a fair

society, in a society that protects our mental health and well-being, we would ensure that
everyone had a meaningful job or role in society and we would eliminate unhealthy
organisational cultures at work.
Adopting this approach would result in a transfer of mental health services from
the health to social services management (including a shift from hospital to residential
care); a substantial reduction in the prescription of medication; a shift of medical
responsibility from psychiatry to GPs with commensurate reduction in psychiatrist
numbers; and the training or retraining of a large number of current workers in mental
health care in a psychosocial approach.
This would require much greater emphasis on, training in, and staffing of,
psychosocial approaches, and would represent a very major revolution in mental health
services and in psychiatric practice. It would challenge the central tenets of at least some
traditionalist, biological psychiatrists and the implications could be significant as their
power and authority is challenged.
Nevertheless these proposals would be entirely affordable, and may even liberate
resources for greater investment in mental health and well-being.

A wonderful and inspiring article. I particularly like the overlap with The Green Party's aims in parts of the article: "We need to promote social mobility and social inclusion, encourage actions aimed at the common or collective good (for instance through practical support of local charitable activities), and reduce both corruption and materialistic greed."

I am very much pleased with the contents you have mentioned. I wanted to thank you for this great article. I enjoyed every little bit part of it and I will be waiting for the new updates.utah msha courses

Quite interesting and nice topic chosen for the post Nice Post keep it up.Excellent post.I want to thank you for this informative post. I really appreciate sharing this great post. Keep up your work.cummins mental health